On 07/08/2022 10:15, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> Look now at Energy companies who have carefully arranged that the company
> that extracts the Oil/Gas from the North Sea is a "different company" to
> the one that sells you gas or petrol.

At least for electricity and gas, and I seem to remember, in the early
days of mobile phones, this was actually something imposed by
government. For gas and electricity, the doctrine was that there had to
be a market, but as all sources got mixed in the same pipes or wires,
creating a natural monopoly, they had to create an artificial market in
which one set of companies sold to consumers and another set sold to them.

(When I'm collared on the street by someone asking who supplies your
gas, an an obvious attempt to get you to switch to a new consumer
oriented company, I'm tempted to reply "Cadent", as they are the actual
ones that pipe it to my property.)

On 07/08/2022 17:48, Java Jive wrote:
> Take, for example, broadband, this is a more recent development that
> post-dates denationalisation

Actually it isn't. A lot of the fundamental work on passive optical
networks, which is the generation beyond ADSL, was done by Post Office
Research at Martlesham, before they were nationalised. I used to read
both the research journal and the journal for their technicians. The
latter moved from interesting technical articles to commercial awareness
pep talks, as they got privatized. (I forget when the British Telecom
branding came in relative to the privatisation, so it might have been
British Telecom Research.

In article <tconlk$kl41$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 07/08/2022 09:31, MikeS wrote:
> > Forget the BBC, that is just small change. You have just described
> > virtually the entire UK privatisation fiasco.

> Some were effective, under the GPO you might have had to wait for years
> to get a phone. But then when they get one big company doing it all,
> they decide to split up so a simple project that used to done with just
> a few phone calls, now needs lots of different people, departments and
> companies involved.

IIRC the way the GPO limited the installation of new phones was due to
Government decisions.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <tconvg$kl41$2@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 07/08/2022 09:57, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > As Government whines that the NHS costs too much and the politicians
> > take the donations and jobs from the companies.

> Don't just blame the government. There is the well known case of
> "nurse" who was a union official (paid by the NHS) but who spent all her
> time politically campaigning against the government and "privatisation"
> but had a company that did consultancy work for the NHS.

Yes, you can always find examples like that. However the reality is that
Government has determined the way things are, over the heads of people in
the NHS. My wife was on two(1) of the statutory supervision bodies for part
of the NHS and saw example after example.

Since then feedback shows it has got ever worse.

Bottom line is that the Government try to it shrug off and blame the
victims or obfuscate. FWIW 'New Labour' was just as bad as the Tories. And
I have my doubts that the 'Bland Labour' we see now will be better.

Beware of a 'Trade Deal' with the USA that lets in more outsourcings by US
companies *and* accepts their insistence that we stop using generics for
things they have on longer-than-UK patents. They also have been insisting
we extend our medications patents to be as long-term as theirs. So they can
monopolise for longer at our expense.

(1) One in London earlier on, the other here in Fife, later.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <tcpi4f$nn1l$1@dont-email.me>, David Woolley
<david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
> On 07/08/2022 10:15, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > Look now at Energy companies who have carefully arranged that the
> > company that extracts the Oil/Gas from the North Sea is a "different
> > company" to the one that sells you gas or petrol.

> At least for electricity and gas, and I seem to remember, in the early
> days of mobile phones, this was actually something imposed by
> government. For gas and electricity, the doctrine was that there had to
> be a market, but as all sources got mixed in the same pipes or wires,
> creating a natural monopoly, they had to create an artificial market in
> which one set of companies sold to consumers and another set sold to
> them.

The advantage for the companies is that they can get many bites at the
cherry whilst pointing at the others for any 'blame'. Its the quick
movements of the hands that distracts the marks.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 08/08/2022 00:38, David Woolley wrote:
>
> On 07/08/2022 17:48, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Take, for example, broadband, this is a more recent development that
>> post-dates denationalisation
>
> Actually it isn't.  A lot of the fundamental work on passive optical
> networks, which is the generation beyond ADSL, was done by Post Office
> Research at Martlesham, before they were nationalised.  I used to read
> both the research journal and the journal for their technicians.  The
> latter moved from interesting technical articles to commercial awareness
> pep talks, as they got privatized.  (I forget when the British Telecom
> branding came in relative to the privatisation, so it might have been
> British Telecom Research.

I take your point, but, as the links I gave showed, I was thinking more
in terms of consumer broadband connections, whereas I suspect the work
you mention, although it may now be being used for that purpose, was
originally aimed at other larger-scale uses. Either way, it can't
really be invoked as being to blame for our poor consumer broadband speeds.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <5a14a9d19anoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <tconlk$kl41$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> > On 07/08/2022 09:31, MikeS wrote:
> > > Forget the BBC, that is just small change. You have just described
> > > virtually the entire UK privatisation fiasco.

> > Some were effective, under the GPO you might have had to wait for years
> > to get a phone. But then when they get one big company doing it all,
> > they decide to split up so a simple project that used to done with just
> > a few phone calls, now needs lots of different people, departments and
> > companies involved.

> IIRC the way the GPO limited the installation of new phones was due to
> Government decisions.

> Jim

well. it was a Government Department at the time - with its own Cabinet
Minister - the PostMaster General

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 08/08/2022 10:37, Java Jive wrote:
> although it may now be being used for that purpose, was originally aimed
> at other larger-scale uses.

The original, main use case was video on demand. Isn't that what the
internet has become?

I did that elsewhere, just ask Sid.

I mean who would have thought that the general public would hold onto shares
when they became very lucrative to sell to big organisations and down the
line well, now we moan about them taking the profits from their earlier
investments.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"MikeS" <MikeS@fred.com> wrote in message
news:tcnt8a$fqpk$1@dont-email.me...
> On 07/08/2022 09:09, Brian Gaff wrote:
>> That seems a little stupid. I thought Maggie was all bout market forces,
>> as
>> such the BBC should have been quids in pocket. and as forproducers
>> setting
>> themselves up as companies and making the same stuff, yes, Indeed its not
>> just TV. As I recall certain BBC radio folk who were making country and
>> easy listening programs became Smooth operations and then started a
>> commercial station then<<flogged it to a large company and took the money
>> and ran.>>
>> Brian
>>
> Forget the BBC, that is just small change.
> You have just described virtually the entire UK privatisation fiasco.

On 08/08/2022 11:50, David Woolley wrote:
>
> On 08/08/2022 10:37, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> although it may now be being used for that purpose, was originally
>> aimed at other larger-scale uses.
>
> The original, main use case was video on demand.  Isn't that what the
> internet has become?

One use of the internet is indeed video-on-demand, but I think if you
want to take this discussion further, more definite dates are needed.
If we're talking about the days when telephone technology was still a PO
affair, I suspect it was not then envisaged that every home would be
having access to video-on-demand?

And I still don't see any relevance to MB's blaming nationalisation for
our poor utility services, against which my invoking of our current
broadband speeds was a counter example.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 08/08/2022 10:05, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <tcpi4f$nn1l$1@dont-email.me>, David Woolley
> <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>> On 07/08/2022 10:15, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>> Look now at Energy companies who have carefully arranged that the
>>> company that extracts the Oil/Gas from the North Sea is a "different
>>> company" to the one that sells you gas or petrol.
>
>> At least for electricity and gas, and I seem to remember, in the early
>> days of mobile phones, this was actually something imposed by
>> government. For gas and electricity, the doctrine was that there had to
>> be a market, but as all sources got mixed in the same pipes or wires,
>> creating a natural monopoly, they had to create an artificial market in
>> which one set of companies sold to consumers and another set sold to
>> them.
>
> The advantage for the companies is that they can get many bites at the
> cherry whilst pointing at the others for any 'blame'. Its the quick
> movements of the hands that distracts the marks.
>

Given you (a) don't like the fact companies extracting the gas are
different from the ones selling it and (b) point out it all gets mixed
in the gas network which is a natural monopoly it appears (c) you think
there should have been one single entity responsible for all continental
shelf gas extraction. That would have required rather a lot of capital
and denied access to a lot of expertise.

And as you mentioned Norway, it ain't what they did either. I can't
think of any developed economy which did it.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 08/08/2022 12:41, Java Jive wrote:
> If we're talking about the days when telephone technology was still a PO
> affair, I suspect it was not then envisaged that every home would be
> having access to video-on-demand?

I think we are talking about approximately 1982.

What they didn't really consider was the wild days of the internet. Now
one can see the big players, more and more, trying to make it fit their
model of the world. I think e-commerce was one thing they didn't really
think about, and they had a simpler view of how the video would get
onto the fibre, with the head end being much closer to the last leg, not
half way across the world, with the need for people like Cloudflare as
intermediaries.

> And I still don't see any relevance to MB's blaming nationalisation
> for our poor utility services, against which my invoking of our
> current broadband speeds was a counter example.

Threads drift, but it basically shows that nationalised industries can
still be responsible for key innovations.

In article <5a14ad6694charles@candehope.me.uk>, charles
<charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> > IIRC the way the GPO limited the installation of new phones was due to
> > Government decisions.

> > Jim

> well. it was a Government Department at the time - with its own Cabinet
> Minister - the PostMaster General

Ah! (pun alert!) That rings a bell. I think I recall reading about this
years ago in the Benn Diaries.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <5a14b89b93noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <5a14ad6694charles@candehope.me.uk>, charles
> <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> > > IIRC the way the GPO limited the installation of new phones was due to
> > > Government decisions.

> > > Jim

> > well. it was a Government Department at the time - with its own Cabinet
> > Minister - the PostMaster General

> Ah! (pun alert!) That rings a bell. I think I recall reading about this
> years ago in the Benn Diaries.

> Jim

Of course, Lord Stansgate (disclaimed) was PMG at one time

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 08/08/2022 14:50, Robin wrote:
> On 08/08/2022 10:05, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> In article <tcpi4f$nn1l$1@dont-email.me>, David Woolley
>> <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 07/08/2022 10:15, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>> Look now at Energy companies who have carefully arranged that the
>>>> company that extracts the Oil/Gas from the North Sea is a "different
>>>> company" to the one that sells you gas or petrol.
>>
>>> At least for electricity and gas, and I seem to remember, in the early
>>> days of mobile phones, this was actually something imposed by
>>> government.  For gas and electricity, the doctrine was that there had to
>>> be a market, but as all sources got mixed in the same pipes or wires,
>>> creating a natural monopoly, they had to create an artificial market in
>>> which one set of companies sold to consumers and another set sold to
>>> them.
>>
>> The advantage for the companies is that they can get many bites at the
>> cherry whilst pointing at the others for any 'blame'. Its the quick
>> movements of the hands that distracts the marks.
>>
>
> Given you (a) don't like the fact companies extracting the gas are
> different from the ones selling it and (b) point out it all gets mixed
> in the gas network which is a natural monopoly it appears (c) you think
> there should have been one single entity responsible for all continental
> shelf gas extraction.  That would have required rather a lot of capital
> and denied access to a lot of expertise.
>
> And as you mentioned Norway, it ain't what they did either.  I can't
> think of any developed economy which did it.
>
>
You are moving the goal posts to support your prejudices.

The point was we have a single domestic gas distribution network. That
could not realistically be duplicated so they created a "market" by
having different companies sell the same gas delivered down the same
pipes. If the recent electricity fiasco doesn't convince you that the
artificial distribution "market" is a flawed concept nothing will.

UK gas supplies are purchased from numerous sources in various
countries. It is inevitable for those sources to be owned by different
companies or governments. That is a natural market, not an artificial
one created through political dogma.

On 08/08/2022 12:12, Brian Gaff wrote:
> I did that elsewhere, just ask Sid.
>
> I mean who would have thought that the general public would hold onto shares
> when they became very lucrative to sell to big organisations and down the
> line well, now we moan about them taking the profits from their earlier
> investments.
> Brian
>
The point was not the general public holding some shares in a few highly
publicised stock market floatations. The real killings went to handfuls
of executives allowed to privatise major assets into private companies
for next to nothing. Their risk was minimal knowing the true value of
those assets. Many of them realised 100 or even 200 fold profits after a
few years by selling out to private equity buyers.

David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
> On 08/08/2022 12:41, Java Jive wrote:
>> If we're talking about the days when telephone technology was still a PO
>> affair, I suspect it was not then envisaged that every home would be
>> having access to video-on-demand?
>
> I think we are talking about approximately 1982.
>
> What they didn't really consider was the wild days of the internet. Now
> one can see the big players, more and more, trying to make it fit their
> model of the world. I think e-commerce was one thing they didn't really
> think about, and they had a simpler view of how the video would get
> onto the fibre, with the head end being much closer to the last leg, not
> half way across the world, with the need for people like Cloudflare as
> intermediaries.
>
>> And I still don't see any relevance to MB's blaming nationalisation
>> for our poor utility services, against which my invoking of our
>> current broadband speeds was a counter example.
>
> Threads drift, but it basically shows that nationalised industries can
> still be responsible for key innovations.
>

Look up what Peter Cochrane former CTO at BT has to say about how the
rollout of fibre to the home across the UK was shut down in 1990 for
political reasons.

In article <98fa3b30-9f2f-b078-da92-346a7b144551@outlook.com>, Robin
<rbw@outlook.com> wrote:

> Given you (a) don't like the fact companies extracting the gas are
> different from the ones selling it and (b) point out it all gets mixed
> in the gas network which is a natural monopoly it appears (c) you think
> there should have been one single entity responsible for all continental
> shelf gas extraction.

Nope. It just would mean that for each area license only one company with a
*UK Legal base* would be given the license to extract and deliver onshore.
Their price would be the basis of what I explained.

> That would have required rather a lot of capital and denied access to a
> lot of expertise.

However that wasn't what I was saying. :-)

As it is, the company doing the extraction and piping inwards may be an
'offshore' company. i.e. one whose accounts, etc, and handled somewhere
other than the UK. They then pay a 'tax' set by the agreement giving
permission to extract - set when no-one in Government allowed for the
situations like the present.

'On shore' this means we get shown only the 'UK company' that buys - at
World price - from the offshore seller, then delivers this to its consumers
in the UK. They aren't making the big windfall profits. However all too
often both companies are owned by *another* offshore one, which reaps the
money as people here struggle to pay.

Its one of the tricks large companies use to be (polite term) 'Tax
Efficient' (true term) dodge tax. We, like mugs, put up with it.

Of course, some (usually smaller) UK companies have got into the
'retailer' end of this without having any big brother out in the
North Sea. These also tend to have sufferred, but were largely for
the whole process 'window dressing' that gave a gloss to the idea
that the market was/is 'competitive. Hence the way UK Gov did all
this was bad for the much touted 'competition' as it has been,
and now is! - for us mere consumers/people of the UK.

Jim

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 08/08/2022 15:31, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <98fa3b30-9f2f-b078-da92-346a7b144551@outlook.com>, Robin
> <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> Given you (a) don't like the fact companies extracting the gas are
>> different from the ones selling it and (b) point out it all gets mixed
>> in the gas network which is a natural monopoly it appears (c) you think
>> there should have been one single entity responsible for all continental
>> shelf gas extraction.
>
> Nope. It just would mean that for each area license only one company with a
> *UK Legal base* would be given the license to extract and deliver onshore.
> Their price would be the basis of what I explained.

The only "legal base" the UK needs to have taxing rights is a permanent
establishment in the UK or a trade carried on in the UK. Petroleum
extraction is a a permanent establishment (PE).

>> That would have required rather a lot of capital and denied access to a
>> lot of expertise.
>
> However that wasn't what I was saying. :-)
>
> As it is, the company doing the extraction and piping inwards may be an
> 'offshore' company. i.e. one whose accounts, etc, and handled somewhere
> other than the UK. They then pay a 'tax' set by the agreement giving
> permission to extract - set when no-one in Government allowed for the
> situations like the present.

The UK's taxing rights don't depend on where the company is
incorporated. And every double taxation agreement I ever saw retains
the UK's rights to tax a PE.

There is of course still much room for tax to leak - as in other trades,
and as with UK registered companies. And that's not just a UK problem.
We've been working with the OECD for years to try to get better controls.

> 'On shore' this means we get shown only the 'UK company' that buys - at
> World price - from the offshore seller, then delivers this to its consumers
> in the UK. They aren't making the big windfall profits. However all too
> often both companies are owned by *another* offshore one, which reaps the
> money as people here struggle to pay.

If it were that easy no one would be paying a Ring Fence Corporation Tax
or the Supplementary Charge yet we collected a net £5 billion in the
past 5 years (despite falls in oil prices). And we wouldn't have the
tax base to get the forecast £5 billion from the Energy Profits Levy:
the "windfall tax" is 25% of profits "as if it were an amount of
corporation tax chargeable on it".

> Its one of the tricks large companies use to be (polite term) 'Tax
> Efficient' (true term) dodge tax. We, like mugs, put up with it.

> Of course, some (usually smaller) UK companies have got into the
> 'retailer' end of this without having any big brother out in the
> North Sea. These also tend to have sufferred, but were largely for
> the whole process 'window dressing' that gave a gloss to the idea
> that the market was/is 'competitive. Hence the way UK Gov did all
> this was bad for the much touted 'competition' as it has been,
> and now is! - for us mere consumers/people of the UK.
>

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In article <tcrqtd$1150f$1@dont-email.me>, MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> wrote:
> You are moving the goal posts to support your prejudices.

Your error. cf below

> The point was we have a single domestic gas distribution network.

That misses the point. :-)

There is one physical distribution network. But we don't buy our gas from
it. We as buy it from whatever 'suppier (of what gets though the physical
network) we choose. These compete and are UK companies.

NONE of the above are the ones making huge profits on the back of "World
Price". Some may well be in difficulty because of this.

The problem is with the *offshore* companies - yet another *different* set
of companies and role - who physically extract the gas/oil from under the
North Sea.

No change need be made with the onshore gas companies you pay your
domestic gas bill to. What I explained would mean they would be able to pay
a lower proce per kWh for the gas they buy from the 'offshore' companies.
So could then all compete in selling it to us, consumers, at a lower price.

Yes, we also buy gas from abroad, and that costs more per kWh. But we would
no longer be paying that high price for all of what we consume.

The 'political dogma' is the regid faith that "the market" cures all ills.
It doesn't. That dog doesn't hunt.

Jim

> That
> could not realistically be duplicated so they created a "market" by
> having different companies sell the same gas delivered down the same
> pipes. If the recent electricity fiasco doesn't convince you that the
> artificial distribution "market" is a flawed concept nothing will.

> UK gas supplies are purchased from numerous sources in various
> countries. It is inevitable for those sources to be owned by different
> companies or governments. That is a natural market, not an artificial
> one created through political dogma.

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <tcrrnk$117e8$1@dont-email.me>, MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> wrote:
> On 08/08/2022 12:12, Brian Gaff wrote:
> > I did that elsewhere, just ask Sid.
> >
> > I mean who would have thought that the general public would hold onto
> > shares when they became very lucrative to sell to big organisations
> > and down the line well, now we moan about them taking the profits from
> > their earlier investments. Brian
> >
> The point was not the general public holding some shares in a few highly
> publicised stock market floatations. The real killings went to handfuls
> of executives allowed to privatise major assets into private companies
> for next to nothing. Their risk was minimal knowing the true value of
> those assets. Many of them realised 100 or even 200 fold profits after a
> few years by selling out to private equity buyers.

However the Government advertised this on the basis that we would become a
share-holding set of individuals. Probably knowing full well that *wasn't*
what would happen and most people would sell on a quick payback profit. So
what was once genuinely run for the population was shifted into an
investment for some, taking profits from the rest of us, year after year.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 09/08/2022 02:05, Owen Rees wrote:
>
> Look up what Peter Cochrane former CTO at BT has to say about how the
> rollout of fibre to the home across the UK was shut down in 1990 for
> political reasons.

Some links would have been useful, but the first thing I found was this:

How Thatcher killed the UK's superfast broadband before it even existed
https://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/how-the-uk-lost-the-broadband-race-in-1990-1224784

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 09/08/2022 10:26, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <tcrqtd$1150f$1@dont-email.me>, MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> wrote:
>> You are moving the goal posts to support your prejudices.
>
> Your error. cf below
>
>> The point was we have a single domestic gas distribution network.
>
> That misses the point. :-)
>
> There is one physical distribution network. But we don't buy our gas from
> it. We as buy it from whatever 'suppier (of what gets though the physical
> network) we choose. These compete and are UK companies.
>
> NONE of the above are the ones making huge profits on the back of "World
> Price". Some may well be in difficulty because of this.
>
> The problem is with the *offshore* companies - yet another *different* set
> of companies and role - who physically extract the gas/oil from under the
> North Sea.
>
> No change need be made with the onshore gas companies you pay your
> domestic gas bill to. What I explained would mean they would be able to pay
> a lower proce per kWh for the gas they buy from the 'offshore' companies.
> So could then all compete in selling it to us, consumers, at a lower price.
>
> Yes, we also buy gas from abroad, and that costs more per kWh. But we would
> no longer be paying that high price for all of what we consume.
>
> The 'political dogma' is the regid faith that "the market" cures all ills.
> It doesn't. That dog doesn't hunt.
>

ISTM what you want can be described more simply: HMG can (a) demand all
NS gas is supplied to the UK and (b) pay whatever price it wants, not
what the gas would fetch on the open market.

You might need to go further of course to take powers to force companies
to extract the gas rather than leave it underground until they can get a
better price. Enforcement of that could be fun.

I wonder what you think about the legal challenges to be expected under
Article 1 of Protocol 1 EHRC. And - probably more important - the risk
of retaliatory action: e.g. if HMG is (it could be argued) confiscating
gas from US and Norwegian companies we might find it a tad harder to
keep on getting gas from the US and Norway.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 09/08/2022 14:12, Robin wrote:

>
> I wonder what you think about the legal challenges to be expected under
> Article 1 of Protocol 1 EHRC.

sorry - *ECHR*

In article <5a153171d1noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> However the Government advertised this on the basis that we would
> become a share-holding set of individuals. Probably knowing full
> well that *wasn't* what would happen and most people would sell on
> a quick payback profit. So what was once genuinely run for the
> population was shifted into an investment for some, taking profits
> from the rest of us, year after year.

At time, way back in the 80s I'm sure the intention was to draw
people towards a more capitalist view and away from socialism,
literally making them capitalists.

My view back them might surprise you, I saw it as political bribery,
Thatcher and her government who I despised, buying votes.
Consequently, I was one of only a few people at work who refused
their free shares on principal. I was a naive socialist in those
days.

Most of my colleagues from those days still have their shares and
always like to point out how well or not they're doing. They don't
know, or have forgotten, I never had any.

Since then, I've realised that principals like that never achieve
anything and only result in my missing out. That's the reason that if
offered some shares now I'd take them.

My political views have also changed and I now see the idea of
ordinary working people owning their own homes and shares as
a very good thing.

Bob.